Literal vs figurative

Some (both from within and without) characterize evangelical Christianity as taking the Bible literally. I think this is oversimplification. A view I've heard is that one should take literally what was intended to be literal, and take figuratively what was intended to be figurative. So when the Psalms talk about sheltering under God's wings, that is a figurative, poetic image, not to be taken literally.

But I wonder if that formula, while very good, isn't itself somewhat over simplified.
A prophetic passage I have pondered from time to time is Isaiah 7:14. "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

There are two statements here. First, the virgin will have a child. Second, that she will name him Immanuel. The first statement is fulfilled quite literally. Mary concieved a son while she was still a virgin. The second statement wasn't fulfilled literally. She and Joseph named their son Jesus, not Immanuel, because the angel told them to do so. We do use the name Immanuel to refer to Jesus, but that usage isn't found anywhere in the New Testament.

What in the text tells us that the first statement is literal and the second not so literal? I'm not aware of anything. I suspect we only know how to interpret those two statements because we know how they were fulfilled.

No comments: